On Fri, 27 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote:
> Jungshik Shin wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, 26 Sep 2002, Tex Texin wrote:
> >
> > > Yes, OS and browsers are getting better. My concerns center around:
> > > Is the mechanism for selecting fallback fonts language-sensitive, so
> > > that it would favor a Japanese font for Unicode Han characters that were
> > > tagged as lang:ja
> >
> > I'm a little at loss as to why you have the impression
> > that 'lang' tag has little effect on rendering of html (in
> > UTF-8. e.g. your page or IUC10 announcement page which used to be at
> > http://www.unicode.org/iuc/iuc10/x-utf8.html) by major browsers. MS
> > IE has been making use of 'lang' attribute(html) for a long time and
> > Mozilla solved the problem (although 'xml:lang' is not yet supported)
> > last December. In case of Mozilla(and Netscape 7), see
> I am glad to see the issue has been given some attention.
> I concluded there was a problem after experimenting with some CJK
> characters that I repeated with different lang tags and could not get
> any display differences unless I used non-Unicode fonts assigned to each
> language. I did this with IE 6 and NS 7 and Opera (dont recall if it was
> 6 or 7.)
Actually, you might have had hard time telling the display difference
depending on what characters you used for your testing EVEN IF you
configured browsers to use different (but with __very similar__ design
principles and look/feels) Unicode-cmapped (but NON-pan-script) fonts
for TC,SC, J and K *under MS Windows*. This difficulty demonstrates
that CJK Unification in Unicode/10646 is not such a big problem as some
people tried to make it.
Jungshik